WOMEN have lately been getting a dressing down again, for revealing skin beneath the knee. Security guards at government complexes are barring ladies whose attire fails to cover their entire calves.
The dress code also applies to men. Last year, two men wearing shorts had to drape themselves in long black cloth, provided by a police station, before they were allowed to enter.
But it is more usual to pick out the dames. One guard was reported to have told a woman, who was judged to be wearing a dress made of see-through material, to put on a pair of pants. If that is the recommended wear, why not just simplify the dress code for easy compliance.
Government facilities should put up a standard sign that reads, “Dress code for men and women: Shirt down to elbows and trousers down to ankles.” What is simpler than uniform dressing?
Needless to say, all staff in government departments must also comply with a “shirt and trousers” dress code to promote collective harmony and discipline.
Forget saris, baju kurung, shorts or long skirts, blouses, men’s shorts and tee shirts when entering or working in a government building.
A simple uniform dress code will free the guards to perform their real duties, and that is, provide security and make sure no one gets in to commit a crime. Check for weapons and bad intentions, not size up the length of a woman’s apparel.
A guard’s scope of works should not include fashion policing. But should we be preoccupied with clothing? Yes, there are deviants on the prowl. Even if only 3% of the adult population is deviant, it totals up to 180,000 predators in Klang Valley and 702,000 throughout the nation.
Two months ago, a 19-year-old salesgirl, dressed in skirts, sat in the front seat of an e-hailing vehicle when the driver asked her to do so. The driver then groped her thighs. When the vehicle slowed down, the girl opened the door and jumped out. About two weeks later, a 21-year-old female cosplayer was stalked by a predator at a cosplay event in a shopping mall. When she reported to police, an officer told her that she was stalked due to her attire and was partly to blame.
Such a comment is termed “victim blaming”, and last month a woman lawyer, in calling for the laws on sexual violence to be improved, said there was a need to prevent “discriminatory evidential burdens such as victim blaming” and shaming. However, victim blaming is a skimpy emotional term that makes no real sense. Does victim blaming mean that a criminal should be declared innocent if the victim is careless? Does any court apply such reasoning?
Someone who commits a crime has breached the Penal Code and must be punished. A thief is always to blame, no matter if you leave your car door unlocked or your house door ajar. There is no provision in the Penal Code for absolving a predator of his crime under such extenuating circumstances as “the victim was careless and left her purse unzipped”.
The thief goes to jail but – this is very important – the victim does not get back her money because it is gone. It is the same thing in rape. The rapist goes to jail but the victim is devastated and may never regain her normalcy. Thus, it is best to avoid falling victim. Take a leaf from the animal world. A hungry lion surveys a herd of deer and looks out for any individual that has fallen out of step and compromised its own safety. This is the individual that the lion attacks. A predator looks for opportunity.
In 2003 a Japanese Cabinet minister found himself in a storm when he said that “men are black panthers”, and that many women risked their own safety by dressing in a provocative manner. Nevertheless, his remarks had some logic to it as in 1991 two researchers polled American psychiatrists on the relationship between dress and sex. The majority agreed that skimpy dressing tended to increase the risk of sex crimes.
Back in 1988, a British judge stirred up a fierce debate when he said at the sentencing of a molester that every girl was entitled to dress provocatively. Many influential Britons, while agreeing with the jail sentence, disputed the judge’s opinion on skimpy clothing. Actress Jenny Seagrove said: “The judge would be right if we were living in an ideal world ... but in the REAL world, men do get provoked.”
Psychiatrist Dr Catherine Storr declared sensibly: “We should never forget that our clothes very much indicate how we expect people to treat us. We are responsible for what we signal to other people. I don’t believe women can wear exactly what they like and expect nothing to happen.”
Gone are the days when humans lived in closely knit primitive societies of kith and kin, and women could wear leafy Stone Age clothing without fear of molest as security concerns were focused on keeping wild animals at bay. Today’s security threats to women are coming from male predators within civilised society.
Men are drawn towards the sight of women. The Buddha observed 2,500 years ago that there is “no other single form so enticing, so desirable, so intoxicating, so binding ... as a woman’s form.” The Catholic Church, mindful that Jesus admonished “anyone who looks lustfully at a woman”, included in its Catechism a definition of modesty as “refusing to unveil what should remain hidden”.
Before “Women-only” subway train coaches were introduced in Japan, schoolgirls in uniforms with short skirts were frequently surrounded by predators, who would grope their thighs during the journey. Eleven years ago, a mini-skirted girl was raped in a public minivan in Jakarta, prompting a street demonstration by women activists who held up placards that read: “Don’t tell us how to dress. Tell them not to rape.”
Activists demand that men should police their own conduct and women should not be expected to conceal their bodies to avoid men’s sexual transgressions. But the reality is that civilised societies are concrete jungles teeming with “panthers”, and even the US, which has the world’s best educational and law enforcement networks, cannot protect schoolchildren from being gunned down in their own classrooms.
In Malaysia, scammers posing as cops are having a field day calling mobile numbers and scaring young and old into sending them all their money. If our hi-tech society is incapable of jamming scam calls or stopping scam fund transfers, how can it protect you from rapists who have you targeted?
Dress for safety. In a 5-star seaside hotel beach event, you can don a micro-mini and still be safe. But walk along a public street in the same revealing attire and you will likely be dragged into a kidnapper’s car.
The writer champions interfaith harmony.
Comments: letters@thesundaily.com
